"fake" baptism

[Tu Es Petrus]

Really? I'm pretty sure the catholic Church of the third and fourth century is on record for having accepted baptisms by heretics. So you see they did not view any baptisms as "invalid", so the practice of anabaptism in all cases was considered gross heresy.

Well, I can give you one example: Failure to use the Trinitarian formula. If someone baptises "in the name of Jesus" only, that baptism in invalid.

Here's another one that was in the news recently: Feminists have been trying to use gender neutral language: "In the name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Holy Sancifier." The Pope himself came out and said that is unacceptable, and that baptisms using that formula are invalid.

Here's a news article about that: LINK

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

Is full emersion ok? or better to sprinkle?

Go Cards!

 

[Kristos]

Ok, just a thought.

let's say someone was a "fake" christian. IOW, they said the right things, went to church, etc... etc... but never actually repented.


they were baptised. Let's assume for the sake of argument, they were baptized in whatever appropriate formula exists for your particular church.

later in life, they realize the errors of their ways. They repent.

was their baptism "valid" in the view of your church?

this isn't meant to be a "you need baptism to be saved" "no ya don't" argument thread.

I'm just curious on the take on a situation such as this.

I suppose extreme circumstances would be evaluated individually, but in general, I would think yes, it was.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Is full emersion ok? or better to sprinkle?

Go Cards!

Are you asking me?

Its doesn't matter. We usually pour over the head:

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

If I was baptized as a Christian and converted to Catholicism would I need to be rebaptized?

Go Cards!

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

If I was baptized as a Christian and converted to Catholicism would I need to be rebaptized?

Go Cards!

Err, we are Christians.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Is full emersion ok? or better to sprinkle?

Go Cards!

See the "Didache".

Tis better to dunk em x3.

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

I was dunked thrice myself In the name of the Father *blurb* Son *splash* and the holy spirit. *gurgle.*

now if only I could live up to it.

 

[LutheranChick]

Baptism is not a work of man- it is a work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore if a person was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit it is a valid baptism. It does not depend on belief. Therefore if a person repents later the baptism does not need to be re-done.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Baptism is not a work of man- it is a work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore if a person was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit it is a valid baptism. It does not depend on belief. Therefore if a person repents later the baptism does not need to be re-done.

That sounds pretty good.

Lutherans do infant baptism too, right?

 

[E.C.]

Ok, just a thought.

let's say someone was a "fake" christian. IOW, they said the right things, went to church, etc... etc... but never actually repented.


they were baptised. Let's assume for the sake of argument, they were baptized in whatever appropriate formula exists for your particular church.

later in life, they realize the errors of their ways. They repent.

was their baptism "valid" in the view of your church?

this isn't meant to be a "you need baptism to be saved" "no ya don't" argument thread.

I'm just curious on the take on a situation such as this.

The person was in the water, they're baptized.


Valid as far as I can say... which isn't much.


I would imagine the repentant bit would be their 'saving grace'. After all, Peter was forgiven and he denied Christ three times. Many whom have done terrible things have been forgiven of their sins. Why not this person?

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

Err, we are Christians.

Sorry, that didn't come out right. How about the word protestant? Baptist, A/G, etc:

Go Cards!

 

[PujolsNonRoidHomerHitter]

See the "Didache".

Tis better to dunk em x3.

How about one long dunk while saying all three names?

Forgive me...

Be absolved my son.

Go Cards!

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Sorry, that didn't come out right. How about the word protestant? Baptist, A/G, etc:

Go Cards!

Okay.

Anyway: You would only have to be baptised if the Church felt that your first baptism was invalid. But that pretty much doesn't happen if you are coming from a mainline protestant church. I think Pentacostals need to be baptised because they don't use the Trinitrian formula.. ..I think. A Mormom convert would definitely need to get baptised, as would a JW.

But your basic Baptist or Lutheran or whatever are gonna be okay. The Church will recognized their baptism as valid.

 

[sunlover1]

Baptism is not a work of man- it is a work of the Holy Spirit. Therefore if a person was baptised in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit it is a valid baptism. It does not depend on belief. Therefore if a person repents later the baptism does not need to be re-done.

While it is the work of God, it does say 'Repent,... and be baptized.
It's a command you can either yeild to or rebel against.

 

[MrPolo]

Ok, just a thought.

let's say someone was a "fake" christian. IOW, they said the right things, went to church, etc... etc... but never actually repented.


they were baptised. Let's assume for the sake of argument, they were baptized in whatever appropriate formula exists for your particular church.

later in life, they realize the errors of their ways. They repent.

was their baptism "valid" in the view of your church?

this isn't meant to be a "you need baptism to be saved" "no ya don't" argument thread.

I'm just curious on the take on a situation such as this.

From the Catechism:

CCC#1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.​

I think this answers both questions. Essentially, the power of the sacrament is there to be had if an adult was not penitent at baptism, but was so later in life. There is no such thing as "rebaptism".

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

While it is the work of God, it does say 'Repent,... and be baptized.
It's a command you can either yeild to or rebel against.

unless you're a baby

 

[SummaScriptura]

Okay, I can see how this is falling out...

The underlying issue which seems to determine how one will answer the OP's question is really more fundamental.

It seems those who believe in the baptism of infants do not think rebaptising is necessary mostly.

Those who believe in believer's-baptism-only find the need to re-baptise conceivable (a misnomer in my book).

So, to get to the heart of the matter the OP should have asked:

1. Do you believe in pedo-baptism?
2. If no, do you think re-baptising might be needed on occasion?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Councils decided this long long ago... they were concerned with someone who had lapsed back to Pagan beliefs or who were following a heretic when they were baptized.

Their decision was that if it were a Trinitarian baptism then it need not be done again... hence... "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins"... in the creed.

If it wasn't done as a Trinitarian baptism then it was not correct in the first place and does not count. Thus, it has not yet been done. (Nothing to redo)

Forgive me...

 

[ezek33]

Ok, just a thought.

let's say someone was a "fake" christian. IOW, they said the right things, went to church, etc... etc... but never actually repented.


they were baptised. Let's assume for the sake of argument, they were baptized in whatever appropriate formula exists for your particular church.

later in life, they realize the errors of their ways. They repent.

was their baptism "valid" in the view of your church?

this isn't meant to be a "you need baptism to be saved" "no ya don't" argument thread.

I'm just curious on the take on a situation such as this.

No it wasn't valid and you probably need to be baptized over.